DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to RCE
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Udagawa (US20190265695) in view of Kovacek (US20200317223) and King (US20210354725).
Regarding claim 1, Udagawa teaches a method for determining an overall route for a vehicle to operate in an autonomous driving mode, the method comprising:
determining, by the one or more processors of a computing system, a plurality of possible paths by the vehicle along the overall route ([0046] disclosing an overall route of the autonomous vehicle to the destination. [0070]-[0080] disclosing determining different routes that satisfy a safety margin. [0059] disclosing the control device controller includes a processor and controls the vehicle. [0084] discloses the route to an overall trajectory and the determining of local target paths along the target overall trajectory. [0087]-[0089] disclosing determining if a target path satisfies a safety margin, if the safety margin is not satisfied, a new target path is created. This is interpreted as determining a plurality of possible paths for a given driving maneuver in order to follow a planned target trajectory along a route);
determining, by the one or more processors based on the received sensor data and the plurality of possible paths, a kinematic feasibility of each possible path according to a kinematic model of the vehicle ([0087]-[0090] disclosing determining whether a path safety margin is satisfied with respect to the size of the vehicle “kinematic model”, i.e. kinematic feasibility of each possible path according to a kinematic model of the vehicle);
selecting, by the one or more processors, a given one of the possible paths based on the kinematic feasibility ([0092] disclosing the target vehicle adopting the target path. [0087]-[0090] disclosing the target path is chosen based on kinematic model of the vehicle and based on making a lane change from a merge lane “lane indicators”, i.e. based on kinematic feasibility); and
generating, by the one or more processors, a trajectory for the vehicle based on the given path ([0087]-[0092] disclosing following the target path based on the kinematic feasibility. It is interpreted that plurality of local target paths are generated, i.e., a trajectory is generated. It is also interpreted that the path that the vehicle follows is the trajectory that the vehicle follows. See also [0084] disclosing the target path includes trajectory of the vehicle);
providing, by the one or more processors, the trajectory to the vehicle for making real-time driving decisions in the autonomous driving mode ([0087]-[0092] disclosing following the target path based on the kinematic feasibility).
Udagawa does not teach and a hierarchy of stored rules, the hierarchy of stored rules being associated with one or more of lane indicators, physical road components or temporal restrictions of the vehicle.
Kovacek teaches and a hierarchy of stored rules, the hierarchy of stored rules being associated with one or more of lane indicators, physical road components or temporal restrictions of the vehicle ([0034]-[0036] disclosing selecting a navigable route for the vehicle from among navigable routes based on a hierarchy of priority factors “rules”, wherein the priority factors being associated with vehicle restriction. [0048] further disclosing the day restriction is taken in consideration, i.e., temporal restriction, the same paragraph also applies to road restrictions).
Udagawa and Kovacek are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, vehicle routing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Udagawa to incorporate the teaching of Kovacek of the hierarchy of stored rules being associated with one or more of lane indicators, physical road components or restrictions of the vehicle in order to select an optimal route based on the hierarchy of priority factors as taught by Kovacek and achieving an optimal operation of a vehicle in a most efficient mode [0034]-[0036].
Udagawa as modified by Kovacek does not teach wherein the kinematic feasibility is based on a swept volume of the vehicle.
King teaches wherein the kinematic feasibility is based on a swept volume of the vehicle ([0203]-[0208] at least disclosing the swept volume of the vehicle when determining a vehicle path).
It is obvious to combine the teaching of King with the teaching of Udagawa as modified by Kovacek yielding predictable results and improving driving safety when the vehicle turns since the vehicle sweeps more volume when turning at a tight corner as taught by King [0203]-[0208].
Regarding claim 2, Udagawa as modified by Kovacel further teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining the kinematic feasibility of each possible path includes evaluating a legal restriction.
Specifically, Kovacek teaches wherein determining the kinematic feasibility of each possible path includes evaluating a legal restriction ([0048] disclosing a driving restriction when the air quality is low, i.e., this is a legal restriction through the local municipality and since it is timed for a day thus it is also a temporal restriction).
It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Kovacek of a legal restriction with the teaching of Udagawa yielding predictable results in order to obey all rules and select most optimal route that obeys all legal restrictions and thus avoiding delays and tickets.
Claim 12, 13 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1, 2, respectively see above rejection.
Claims 3, 11, 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Udagawa (US20190265695) in view of Kovacek (US20200317223) and Voznesensky (US20200200553).
Regarding claim 3, Udagawa as modified by Kovacel teaches the method of claim 1. Udagawa as modified by Kovacel does not teaches wherein evaluating the temporal restriction includes estimating a likelihood that the vehicle will be able to perform a driving action prior to occurrence of the temporal restriction.
Voznesensky teaches wherein evaluating the temporal restriction includes estimating a likelihood that the vehicle will be able to perform a driving action prior to occurrence of the temporal restriction ([0018] disclosing the temporal data are time dependent condition of a roadway such as traffic, weather condition of road and construction on the road. [0024] disclosing avoiding the route with unfavorable traffic and weather, which is a temporal data depending on the day. An example is given in [0024] a highway may not be the fastest route at a certain time. It can be interpreted that the temporal restriction to the highway occurs at that certain time and the vehicle does not need to reroute in any other time, i.e. the likelihood that the vehicle will be able to perform the driving action before the occurrence of the temporal restriction).
Udagawa as modified by Kovacel and Voznesensky and Voznesensky are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, autonomous vehicle routing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Udagawa as modified by Kovacel and Voznesensky to incorporate the teaching of Voznesensky of wherein evaluating the temporal restriction includes estimating a likelihood that the vehicle will be able to perform a driving action prior to occurrence of the temporal restriction in order to increase the predictability of vehicle routing and to avoid routing the vehicle into unfavorable traffic, weather, or other temporary conditions (Voznesensky [0024]).
Regarding claim 11, Udagawa as modified by Kovacek teaches the method of claim 1. Udagawa as modified by Kovacek does not teach further comprising receiving information about restrictions or maneuver costs from one or more other vehicles that have driven along the overall route.
Voznesensky teaches further comprising receiving information about restrictions or maneuver costs from one or more other vehicles that have driven along the overall route ([0036] disclosing receiving temporal data “temporal restrictions” from other vehicles who have travelled along the route).
Udagawa as modified by Kovacek and Voznesensky are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, autonomous vehicle routing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Udagawa as modified by Kovacek to incorporate the teaching of Voznesensky of receiving information about restrictions or maneuver costs from one or more other vehicles that have driven along the overall route in order to increase the predictability of vehicle routing and to avoid routing the vehicle into unfavorable traffic, weather, or other temporary conditions (Voznesensky [0024]).
Claims 14 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 3, respectively, see above rejection.
Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 11, see above rejection.
Claims 4, 5, 15, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Udagawa (US20190265695) in view of Kovacek (US20200317223) and Palanisamy (US20190286151).
Regarding claim 4, Udagawa as modified by Kovacek teaches the method of claim 1. Udagawa as modified by Kovacek does not teach wherein determining the kinematic feasibility for each path includes evaluating a maneuver cost associated with that path. However, Udagawa teaches determining the kinematic feasibility of each possible path (Udagawa [0087]-[0090] disclosing a safety margin “maneuver cost” associated with the path based on the size of the object and the wheelbase during a turning maneuver).
Palanisamy teaches wherein determining the kinematic feasibility for each path includes evaluating a maneuver cost associated with that path ([0035]-[0037] disclosing determining the kinematic feasibility of each path maneuvers, such as steering and braking maneuvers. The kinematic feasibility is determined for optimal paths that was determined to be optimal based on a cost associated with each path, i.e., determining the kinematic feasibility includes determining a cost associated with each path).
Udagawa as modified by Kovacel and Palanisamy are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, autonomous vehicle routing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Udagawa as modified by Kovacel to incorporate the teaching of Palanisamy of wherein determining the kinematic feasibility for each path includes evaluating a maneuver cost associated with that path in order to follow a prescribed path without exceeding feasible operation space of the powertrain braking and steering of the vehicle and meet all vehicle kinematic constrains as taught by Palanisamy [0037].
Regarding claim 5, Udagawa as modified by Kovacel and Palanisamy teaches the method of claim 4. Udagawa as modified by Kovacel and Palanisamy further teaches wherein the maneuver cost is based on one or more of a number of turns to be performed with the maneuver or whether there is a constraint on a maneuver type.
Specifically, Palanisamy further teaches wherein the maneuver cost is based on one or more of a number of turns to be performed with the maneuver or whether there is a constraint on a maneuver type ([0035]-[0037] disclosing a cost based on maximum acceleration and deceleration, i.e., constraint on a maneuver type).
Udagawa as modified by Kovacel and Palanisamy and Palanisamy are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, autonomous vehicle routing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Udagawa as modified by Kovacel and Palanisamy to incorporate the teaching of Palanisamy of wherein the maneuver cost is based on one or more of a number of turns to be performed with the maneuver or whether there is a constraint on a maneuver type in order to follow a prescribed path without exceeding feasible operation space of the powertrain braking and steering of the vehicle and meet all vehicle kinematic constrains as taught by Palanisamy [0037].
Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4, see above rejection.
Regarding claim 16, Udagawa as modified by Kovacel and Palanisamy teaches the method of claim 15. Udagawa as modified by Kovacel and Palanisamy further teaches wherein the maneuver cost is based on one or more of a number of turns to be performed with the maneuver, whether there is a constraint on a maneuver type, visibility limitation, a weather limitation, a neighborhood type, or a temporal restriction.
Specifically, Palanisamy further teaches wherein the maneuver cost is based on one or more of a number of turns to be performed with the maneuver or whether there is a constraint on a maneuver type, visibility limitation, a weather limitation, a neighborhood type, or a temporal restriction ([0035]-[0037] disclosing a cost based on maximum acceleration and deceleration, i.e., constraint on a maneuver type).
Udagawa as modified by Kovacel and Palanisamy and Palanisamy are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, autonomous vehicle routing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Udagawa as modified by Kovacel and Palanisamy to incorporate the teaching of Palanisamy of wherein the maneuver cost is based on one or more of a number of turns to be performed with the maneuver or whether there is a constraint on a maneuver type in order to follow a prescribed path without exceeding feasible operation space of the powertrain braking and steering of the vehicle and meet all vehicle kinematic constrains as taught by Palanisamy [0037].
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Udagawa (US20190265695) in view of Kovacek (US20200317223) and Palanisamy (US20190286151) and Voznesensky (US20200200553).
Regarding claim 6, Udagawa as modified by Kovacek and Palanisamy teaches the method of claim 4. Udagawa as modified by Kovacel and Palanisamy does not teach wherein the maneuver cost is based on one or more of a visibility limitation, a weather limitation, a neighborhood type or a temporal restriction.
Voznesensky teaches teach wherein the maneuver cost is based on one or more of a visibility limitation, a weather limitation, a neighborhood type or a temporal restriction ([0024] disclosing avoiding the route with unfavorable traffic and weather, which is a temporal data depending on the day. An example is given in [0024] a highway may not be the fastest route at a certain time. It can be interpreted that the temporal restriction to the highway occurs at that certain time and the vehicle does not need to reroute in any other time. [0028] disclosing a cost associated with the temporal data when a route component is impassable).
Udagawa as modified by Kovacel and Palanisamy and Voznesensky are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, autonomous vehicle routing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Udagawa as modified by Kovacel and Palanisamy to incorporate the teaching of Voznesensky of wherein the maneuver cost is based on one or more of a visibility limitation, a weather limitation, a neighborhood type or a temporal restriction in order to increase the predictability of vehicle routing and to avoid routing the vehicle into unfavorable traffic, weather, or other temporary conditions (Voznesensky [0024]).
Claims 7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Udagawa (US20190265695) in view of Kovacek (US20200317223) and Palanisamy (US20190286151) and Mehdi (US20200290619).
Regarding claim 7, Udagawa as modified by Kovacek and Palanisamy teaches the method of claim 4. Udagawa as modified by Kovacek and Palanisamy does not teach wherein the maneuver cost includes the likelihood of the vehicle becoming stuck.
Mehdi teaches wherein the maneuver cost includes the likelihood of the vehicle becoming stuck ([0050] disclosing if the primary route is of high cost due to a vehicle blocking the road without an opportunity to pass, the vehicle may choose an alternative route to the destination).
Udagawa as modified by Kovacek and Palanisamy and Mehdi are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, autonomous vehicle routing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Udagawa as modified by Kovacek and Palanisamy to incorporate the teaching of Mehdi of wherein selecting the given path is further based on a likelihood of the vehicle becoming stuck for one or more of the possible paths in order to avoid a route with an excessive cost maneuver that may get the vehicle stock in traffic thus improving driving efficiency (Mehdi [0049]).
Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 7, see above rejection.
Claims 8, 9, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Udagawa (US20190265695) in view of Kovacek (US20200317223) and Gier (US20210133466).
Regarding claim 8, Udagawa as modified by Kovacek teaches the method of claim 1. Udagawa as modified by Kovacek does not teach wherein the hierarchy of rules includes a set of rules relating to an item or object along a roadway.
Gier teaches wherein the hierarchy of rules includes a set of rules relating to an item or object along a roadway ([0034] disclosing the vehicle driving in its lane and the drivable region is remaining in the first driving lane. [0036] disclosing the driving lane is expanded into the second lane for the vehicle to pass an object on the road. [0040] discloses if a lane divider indicates a no passing zone, the vehicle is not allowed to pass into the oncoming traffic lane. It is at least interpreted that the hierarchy of rules include driving in the first lane unless there is an object in the first lane, and the second rule to use the oncoming lane only if passing is allowed. It is also interpreted that the hierarchy of rules are pass if there is no divider that restricts passing, however if there is a divider, the no pass rule supersedes the passing rule if there was a divider that restricts passing. the hierarchy of rules depend on the objects being present and on the markers on the lane and different lane line types).
Udagawa as modified by Kovacek and Gier are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, autonomous vehicle routing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Udagawa as modified by Kovacek to incorporate the teaching of Gier of wherein the hierarchy of rules includes a set of rules relating to an item or object along a roadway in order to safely pass an object on the road based on rules of the road improving safety and following traffic rules as taught by Gier [0037].
Regarding claim 9, Udagawa as modified by Kovacek and Gier teaches the method of claim 8. Udagawa as modified by Kovacek and Gier further teaches wherein the item or object includes one or more of different lane line types, curb configurations or road shoulder types.
Specifically, Gier teaches further teaches wherein the item or object includes one or more of different lane line types, curb configurations or road shoulder types ([0034] disclosing the vehicle driving in its lane and the drivable region is remaining in the first driving lane. [0036] disclosing the driving lane is expanded into the second lane for the vehicle to pass an object on the road. [0040] discloses if a lane divider indicates a no passing zone, the vehicle is not allowed to pass into the oncoming traffic lane. It is at least interpreted that the hierarchy of rules include driving in the first lane unless there is an object in the first lane, and the second rule to use the oncoming lane only if passing is allowed. It is also interpreted that the hierarchy of rules are pass if there is no divider that restricts passing, however if there is a divider, the no pass rule supersedes the passing rule if there was a divider that restricts passing. the hierarchy of rules depend on the objects being present and on the markers on the lane and different lane line types).
Udagawa as modified by Kovacek and Gier and Gier are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, autonomous vehicle routing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Udagawa as modified by Kovacek and Gier to incorporate the teaching of Gier of wherein the item or object includes one or more of different lane line types, curb configurations or road shoulder types in order to safely pass an object on the road based on rules of the road improving safety and following traffic rules as taught by Gier [0037].
Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 8, see above rejection.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Udagawa (US20190265695) in view of Kovacek (US20200317223) and Vora (US20200192391).
Regarding claim 10, Udagawa as modified by Kovacek teaches the method of claim 1. Udagawa as modified by Kovacek does not teach wherein selecting the given path based on the hierarchy of rules includes ranking paths based on expected violation of one or more rules in the hierarchy.
Vora teaches wherein selecting the given path based on the hierarchy of rules includes ranking paths based on expected violation of one or more rules in the hierarchy ([0005] disclosing determining a number of violations for the second motion segment is the lowest compared to a plurality of motion segments and selecting the second motion segment. [0119] disclosing a hierarchical order for the constraints. [0120] disclosing weighting each violation of a constraint by a rank of the constraint to generate the operational metric. [0121] disclosing plurality of operational metrics for each motion segment corresponding to the number of violations of constraints for the motion segment. [0122] disclosing the operation metric which is based on the navigational safety is rated higher than the operational metric associated with a passenger comfort. [0138] discloses operating the AV based on selecting one motion segment over the other motion segment based on the hierarchy of the violations “rules”).
Udagawa as modified by Kovacek and Vora are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor, autonomous vehicle routing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teaching of Udagawa as modified by Kovacek to incorporate the teaching of Vora of wherein selecting the given path based on the hierarchy of rules includes ranking paths based on expected violation of one or more rules in the hierarchy in order to allow the vehicle to exceed a speed limit when the violation would avoid a collision as taught by Vora [0138].
Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 10, see above rejection.
Claims 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Udagawa (US20190265695) in view of Kovacek (US20200317223) and King (US20210354725) and Carrasco (US20140032184).
Regarding claim 21, Udagawa as modified by Kovacek and king teaches the method of claim 1, however does not teach wherein the swept volume of the vehicle accounts for one or more articulating sections of the vehicle.
Carrasco in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the swept volume of the vehicle accounts for one or more articulating sections of the vehicle (at least [0259] disclosing the swept volume of a tractor and a trailer along a path).
The combination/substitution of Carraso’s teaching of a swept volume to the teaching of Udagawa as modified by Kovacek and King of a swept volume is obvious yielding predictable results to determine if the vehicle has clearance on the roadway avoiding obstacles thus improving driving safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to applicant’s arguments that “since selecting is based on kinematic feasibility, claim 1 first determines kinematic feasibility for each path before selecting a given path. A claim requires an ordering of steps when the claim language, as a matter of logic or grammar requires that the steps be performed in the order written, or the specification directly or implicitly requires an order of steps…. In contrast Udagawa tonly generates a single target path, which it then checks against a safety margin…thus Udagawa generates a target path and merely adjusts the target path iteratively if necessary. In contrast the claimed approach evaluates a plurality of possible paths before selecting a path”, Udagawa in at least [0070]-[0085] discloses the steps of determining a route before determining a kinematic feasibility and if the route does not meet the kinematic feasibility, it creates an alternative route and determines feasibility of the alternative route and the process repeats until the route is selected based on the kinematic feasibility and plurality of paths. The claim language requires determining the kinematic feasibility of each path after determining the path, but does not explicitly require determining all the paths and then determining kinematic feasibility of each path at the same time. Thus Udagawa selects the path after evaluating a plurality of the first path and at least one alternative paths against kinematic feasibility when the first path fails to meet kinematic feasibility. Thus the “Before” limitation is met since the kinematic feasibility of each path is determined before selecting the final path.
Claim 1: determining a plurality of possible paths…along the overall route (Udagawa teaches the limitation in [0070]-[0085] disclosing determining a route and then determining other alternative routes by rerouting.
Determining, by the processor based on the plurality of possible paths, a kinematic feasibility of each path according to a kinematic model of the vehicle (Udagawa teaches the first path is determined then kinematic feasibility of the first path is determined, then an alternative path is determined and kinematic feasibility is determined for second path)… thus the order of determining kinematic feasibility of each path after determining the path is met by Udagawa and the claim limitation is met.
Selecting… a given one of possible paths based on the kinematic feasibility (Udagawa in [0070]-[0085] discloses selecting the path based on the kinematic feasibility of the plurality of paths, since the first path kinematic feasibility fails to meet the threshold, thus the second path is selected based on the kinematic feasibility)…thus Udagawa teaches the selection of a given possible path based on the kinematic feasibility.
Thus based on the claim language, the claim requires the order of determining kinematic feasibility of each path after the path is determined and selecting the path based on the kinematic possibility which is taught by Udagawa. the selection by Udagawa is done based on the kinematic feasibility of each path, after a first path is determined to fail the kinematic feasibility, another path is checked for kinematic feasibility and is selected when it meets kinematic feasibility.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in PTO-892 and not mentioned above disclose related devices and methods.
US20220281464 disclosing swept area for articulating vehicles.
US20180307236 disclosing minimizing cost to find optimal trajectory that the vehicle is physically capable of executing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7734. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:30-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramon Mercado can be reached on (571) 270-5744. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMAD O EL SAYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3658B
Prosecution Insights